2001 (3) TMI 1032 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to cases under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).
2. Interpretation of the term "if not already availed of" in the context of the right to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.
3. The effect of filing a challan on the right to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Section 167(2) CrPC to MPID Act Cases:
The Supreme Court examined whether the provisions of Section 167(2) CrPC apply to cases under the MPID Act. The Special Judge initially ruled that Section 167(2) CrPC did not apply to the MPID Act, but the High Court reversed this decision, stating that the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC was indeed applicable to cases under the MPID Act.

2. Interpretation of "if not already availed of":
The Court discussed the interpretation of the term "if not already availed of" as used in the Sanjay Dutt case. It was clarified that merely filing an application for bail and expressing willingness to furnish bail does not constitute availing of the right. The right is considered availed only when the bail bond is actually furnished. The Court emphasized that the right to be released on bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is extinguished once the challan is filed, provided the bail bond has not been furnished by that time.

3. Effect of Filing a Challan on the Right to Bail:
The Court reiterated that the right to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is a valuable and indefeasible right, but it is enforceable only prior to the filing of the challan. Once the challan is filed, the right to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is extinguished, and the custody of the accused is governed by other provisions of the CrPC. The Court cited the Constitution Bench decision in Sanjay Dutt, which clarified that the right to bail does not survive or remain enforceable after the challan is filed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not err in its judgment. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the right to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC was not availed of by the appellant as the challan was filed before the bail bond was furnished. The Court also noted that any delay by the court in considering the bail application should be addressed by moving to a superior court for appropriate directions.